A Liberal Studied Conservative Brains And Made A Discovery He Never Expected

Generally articles about conservatism vs liberalism basically say that one rules and one drools, depending on who the author voted for in 2012. In this case, it was written by someone at Salon.com, who admitted that this is a problem for the left. We give credit where it’s due here.

He’s also selling a book called “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality,” because his publisher rejected the original titles, “Arbitrary Liberal Buzzwords that Don’t Really Mean Anything.”

RELATED STORIES

47 percent of conservative Republicanssaid they were “very happy,” compared with just 28 percent of liberal Democrats…this result could not simply be attributed to the seemingly obvious cause: differences in income levels between the left and the right. Rather, for every income group in the study, conservative Republicans were happier than Democrats.

One striking findingis that conservatives tend to be less neurotic — or, more emotionally stable — than liberals. It is part of the inherent definition of neuroticism that one is less happy — more fretful, more depressed.

That means they probably make more friends and feel more comfortable in groups and communities. They’re more sociable. Once again, this probably helps confer a subjective sense of greater happiness.

Dems in Iowa don’t seem concerned

The Briefing, Vol. III, Issue 12 –

Clinton corruption seeps into the polls.

KYGOV GOP primary features a lively three-way race.

Classic Tea Party fight may be coming in FLSEN.

To: Our readers
From: David Freddoso

President 2016

Peter Schweizer’s new book,Clinton Cash, was released last week. Although many of the book’s juicy nuggets had been released already in the form of stories in the Washington Post and The New York Times, the book contains a treasure-trove of apparent Clinton conflicts of interest and a distinct appearance of corruption.

The common storyline: Someone who has business before the State Department massively overpays Bill Clinton to give a few speeches, and/or donates a large sum to the Clintons’ foundations, in hopes of getting better treatment. Sometimes, they got it. In some cases, they didn’t or at least haven’t yet. But in each case, people tried to use their money to curry favor with the Clintons, and their checks were cashed.

For example, there’s the one about the Swedish Company that paid Bill Clinton $750,000 to give a single speech — at just that time, the company was worried that Hillary Clinton’s State Department might crack down on their telecom deal with an Iranian regime under sanctions. (It didn’t.)

There’s the one about TD Bank, a major investor in the Keystone XL pipeline, which paid Bill Clinton $1.8 million for a series of speeches while that pipeline was under State Department consideration. (They didn’t get what wanted — at least not yet.)

There’s the one about nuclear trade with India, mining interests in Bangladesh and Africa, the Russian government and U.S. uranium mining, and much more.

Amid these revelations, the Clintons have announced that due to “mistakes,” several foreign government contributions to their foundations were improperly concealed in their tax returns. And a number of Canadian donations were not disclosed at all —part of a scheme by the former Clinton aideswho set up a Canadian charity in order to shield them from disclosure.

These are all troubling revelations that the Clintons have yet to address in any serious manner. So far, they have used the go-to tactic of the 1990s — just send a lot of loud voices out into the media (David Brock comes to mind) to disparage critics on television, allege a vast right-wing conspiracy, and if nothing else distract from the issue with their own eccentricity. But we now live in the Internet era, and it’s a very different time in journalism than it was in the 1990s. The Clintons simply cannot count on having the same advantages now that they had when they actually controlled the White House. Their old playbook may not work.

And there are already signs that the stench of scandal is starting to matter, at least at the edges.

The Granite State poll of last week, for example,has Clinton losing New Hampshire to Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, and tied with Scott Walker. She doesn’t break 45 percent against any of the four. As recently as February, she was polling over 50 percent in the same poll against both Bush and Paul. (Two other New Hampshire polls were released last week — one showed Clinton losing against Bush and Walker, one showed her with a narrow lead.)

Arecent poll of Virginiashowed her losing to Bush and very narrowly defeating others. Even before the Clinton Cash revelations, Mason-Dixon had her losing to both Rubio and Bush in Florida. Bear in mind that as a candidate with nearly universal name recognition, Clinton is not likely to gain too much general election support if she doesn’t have it already.

Clinton’s approvals are also sinking across the country, as last week’sWall Street Journal polldemonstrates. The poll, taken in late April before most of the Clinton Cash revelations and delayed in its release until May 9, does not show a huge drop in Clinton’s head-to-head ballot performance, but it does show that her approval ratings have hit their lowest point since 2008. Also, it shows that a majority of voters are skeptical about her honesty.

Now, these polls are early. They say nothing about what the eventual result will be. But they suggest that Clinton is not going to have an easy time of it. And as the revelations continue, her task will in fact get harder and harder. A few more polls like these in a few more key states, a little more movement south in her approvals and ballot tests, and suddenly Democrats might start wondering whether there’s a way out of the coming coronation.

Up to now, the Clinton plan has involved a path to victory similar to but distinct from Obama’s. Where Obama turned out the young and the non-white at unprecedented levels, she would turn white women and win the election by stealing them from the GOP.

But now, as her honesty is called into question, another path is starting to emerge. Clinton not only has the potential to win like Obama did, but she also has a clear path to a defeat of Dukakis-like proportions.

Governor 2015

Kentucky:The Bluegrass State’s gubernatorial primary is next Tuesday. On the Democratic side, Attorney General Jack Conway (ofAqua Buddhafame, who lost to Rand Paul in 2010) will win the nod in a walk.

On the other side, recent events have turned the GOP primary into a bruising three-way contest. The race is close enough at this point that any of three candidates might well come away the winner — and all three are conservatives.

Matt Bevin is the at times hapless but admirably determined David who faced Mitch McConnell’s Goliath in a scorched-earth primary last year, and lost. Bevin is by no means the favorite in this race, but the only recent poll (a commissioned poll from PPP) puts all three men within the margin of error.

James Comer — the state Commissioner of Agriculture. Comer rose to his current position after his predecessor, Richie Farmer, was convicted on corruption charges and sent to prison.

Comer’s bid was quite suddenly thrown into crisis recently when an old college girlfriend accused him of abusing her, both mentally and physically, in the early 1990s. Most damaging, perhaps, she accused him of taking her to have an abortion. An old roommate corroborated at least some of the account, but the accuser is vague on the details.

The allegation is so old that it is nearly impossible to fully rebut, even if it is a complete fabrication. And this is the problem with late-breaking accusations during election-time — the standard of innocent until proven guilty only applies in court, not with the electorate. Even if they disbelieve all of the accusations, Republican voters might hesitate to nominate someone who will enter the general election with such a cloud over his head.

Comer denied everything in a press conference last week and threatened a lawsuit against theLouisiville Courier Journaland the people spreading the allegations.

Hal Heiner — a self-funding businessman who once served on the Louisville City Council and ran for mayor unsuccessfully — has the most credible claim to being the frontrunner. He has hit the airwaves hard with ads to boost his own name ID.

He is also accused — both by Comer and by Bevin — of being behind the attacks on Comer. (He denies this, but his running mate was in contact with the blogger who originally pushed the story.)

As with most primary elections — especially those with more than two viable candidates — the field in Kentucky is very fluid. Polls cannot necessarily be trusted to pick up late breaks in support toward one candidate or another.

Heiner’s possible involvement with the people shopping around the Comer scandal has the potential to backfire. Or the accusations could take Comer out. The third possibility — the most intriguing — is that both could happen at the same time. If voters go with Bevin to steer clear of the entire mess, that would create an awkward situation in Kentucky politics. Bevin has, of course, shrewdly voiced support for Comer in this matter whilst accusing Heiner of peddling the story.

Bevin’s 2014 run showed he is a flawed candidate, but not necessarily fatally flawed. Moreover, although Conway is considered a relatively strong Democratic nominee (in spite of his 2010 defeat), the Bluegrass poll suggests that he faces a competitive race against any of the three Republicans. Bevin performs worst of the three, starting off behindby six points, but Conway is nowhere near 50 percent against anyone.

Bear in mind that Kentucky’s realignment to becoming a truly Republican state was suddenly interrupted by the disastrous governorship of Ernie Fletcher, R, last decade. It it possible that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unexpected blowout victory last year presages a true, lasting realignment has finally arrived as in other Southern states. This would mean that Kentucky will start voting Republican down-ballot the way it has in presidential races.

One more note about a Bevin win — no matter how unlikely it seems. It would put Sens. Rand Paul and McConnell in a difficult position. They could either help a party pariah in the general, or else (in theory anyway) allow Democrats to have Paul’s Senate seat, were he somehow to win the presidency, because the governor would appoint his replacement.

Senate 2016

Florida:If you’re hankering for a classic 2010-style fight between the Tea Party and establishment wings of the GOP, keep an eye on the race to succeed Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

The shape of the Republican contest could change if others get in. But conservative groups have quickly fallen in behind Rep.Ron DeSantis, who represents a safe Republican district in the Jacksonville area. A graduate of Yale and Harvard Law and a former Navy JAG, he is described as a potentially decent candidate who lacks any obvious disqualifying problems. He is only 36 years old.

Republican Party regulars would like to nominate Carlos Lopez-Cantera, Rick Scott’s second lieutenant governor. He seems set to jump into the race. Of Cuban and Jewish descent, he has great popularity in South Florida. He is a political ally of Rubio. And Republicans want nothing more than to cut into Democrats’ recent inroads with South Florida Hispanics.

Even as Republicans’ face a potential ideological battle in Florida, Democrats are likely to face the same fate. The party favorite for the nomination, the more moderate Rep.Patrick Murphy, D, may well have to square off against the flamboyant and outspoken liberal Rep. Alan Grayson.Grayson is probably less electable than anyone currently discussed in the Republican field.

Luxurious Life As First Lady Takes Toll On Michelle Obama Because She Is Black, She Complains

Globetrotting, Ivy League-educated, Marchesa gown-wearing first lady Michelle Obama’s commencement address at Tuskegee University on Saturday described the trials and tribulations she believes she has faced as the first black first lady in American history.

The intense media scrutiny, occasional critical and disparaging remarks — it’s all too much and she said it has led to sleepless nights either in the White House or in posh, five-star hotels where she and her retinue stay,according to The Hill.

“You might remember the on-stage celebratory fist bump between me and my husband after a primary win that was referred to as a ‘terrorist fist jab,’” she told graduates of the private, historically black science- and engineering-heavy school in Alabama.

“And over the years, folks have used plenty of interesting words to describe me. One said I exhibited ‘a little bit of uppity-ism,’” Obama said. “Another noted that I was one of my husband’s ‘cronies of color.’ Cable news once charmingly referred to me as ‘Obama’s Baby Mama.’”

The international jetsetter, a graduate of both Princeton University and Harvard Law School, also complained that she feels she endured a set of expectations during her husband Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign that was different than the expectations for other would-be presidential wives.(RELATED: Remember When Obama Was The Messiah?)

Specifically, she believes the questions she faced as a potential first lady were overly invasive.

“As potentially the first African-American first lady, I was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations; conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others. Was I too loud, or too angry, or too emasculating? Or was I too soft, too much of a mom, not enough of a career woman?” Obama said, according to The Hill.

Obama said she and her husband, the president of the United States and arguably the most powerful man in the world, have faced “frustrating” racism, which is “a heavy burden to carry.”

“We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives,” she griped.

Obama additionally observed that the Tuskegee Airmen, the legendary regiment of black World War II pilots, faced degrading racial insults but overcame the racial mistreatment to achieve heroism.

The first lady urged Tuskegee University graduates never “to succumb to feelings of despair and anger.”

Along with President Obama and the couple’s two children (and occasionally her mother), Michelle Obama has made sure to spend plenty of taxpayer dollars on an impressive run of sweet luxury vacations.

In January, the president and first lady Michelle Obama traveled at taxpayer expense to beautiful, exotic India. The trip included a romantic visit to the Taj Mahal, perhaps the world’s most famous architectural testament of love — a gleaming, white marble mausoleum constructed under the orders of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan for his third wife, Mumtaz Mahal.(RELATED: Obama To Show Michelle Taj Mahal)

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA HAS PROBLEM WITH EX-‘GAYS’

‘When will you take the time to sit down with us and let us share our experiences?’

Janet Boynes

Just imagine a president, like Barack Obama for example, refusing to meet with a group because of their sexual orientation.

Impossible, you say?

Well …

A petition has been launched atChange.org,a popular online petition-posting site that boasts it is integral to helping people “transform their communities” every day, asking President Obama to keep his word.

In his victory speech on November 5, 2008, as reported by the New York Times,Obama said: “And for those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight; but I hear your voices. I need your help, and I will be your president, too.”

Which is just fine with the petition organizers, including Janet Boynes of Janet Boynes Ministries, if only he would.

The problem for them is that he’s hasn’t met with them, or listened to them, and very likely the problem for Obama is that they are ex-”gays.”

Former homosexuals. Former lesbians.

Which, under the politically correct mantra in which the country is awash these days, don’t exist. Because, under the demands for “civil rights” for a sexual orientation, such orientation would have to be immutable.

The petitionis for everyone who would like to see the conversation with Obama happen, not just those who have left the same-sex lifestyle. It explains:

“For those of us who have left the homosexual lifestyle, you have never listened to us. Countless people who are participating in the homosexual lifestyle have visited with you at the White House, and you have supported them on numerous occasions.

“What about those of us whose compelling stories you have chosen to ignore? We also have voices; and when you were first elected, you promised to listen to us. That has not happened yet.

“Mr. President, when will you take the time to sit down with us and let us share our experiences?”

Boynes, whose ministry focuses on individuals questioning their sexuality and those who wish to leave homosexuality, speaks from experience. Fourteen years she lived as a lesbian until God called her out of that lifestyle. That was more than a decade ago.

In a commentary,she wrote, “For years, the president of the United States has sat down with those in the LGBTQ community but has failed to hear the stories of those of us who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle. … Please join me in signing this petition to ask President Obama to hear the voices of those of us who know from personal experiences or through the experiences of others that it is possible to leave the homosexual lifestyle.”

The petition was surging through the 1,300 signature level heading into the weekend.

Boynes told WND she just wants the president to listen, but it appears he’s concerned about offending those in the “gay” community, a huge source of support for his program that has been precedent-setting in its advocacy for homosexuality, same-sex “marriage” and more.

“Each year thousands of men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality through gender affirming programs, including counseling, support groups, faith based ministries, and other non-judgmental environments,” the letter said. “Their decision is a personal one that only they can make. However, there are those in society who refuse to respect an individual’s right to self-determination.

“Consequently, formerly gay men and women are harassed, bullied, and discriminated against simply because they dare to exist.

“Because of your public outpouring of support for the LGBT community, we ask that you also extend your support to the ex-gay community, which continues to face unprecedented prejudice, bullying and hate.”

The same organization had earlier approached Obama, when he still was a senator, with a request for support.

At that time, he was told, “Former homosexuals and their allies have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”

For example, ex-”gays” routinely are excluded from NEA, PTA and American School Counselors Associations events and ex-”gay” speakers are not welcome on diversity days. Even their own conferences are picketed by “gay rights” groups.

But instead of support, the reverse developed.

“Sen. Obama knows about this discriminatory treatment firsthand,” PFOX reported. “When ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin sang at an Obama fundraiser last year, gay rights organizations demanded that Obama remove McClurkin from the program. On CNN Prime News, former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Wayne Besen insisted that Obama should fire McClurkin just for being ex-gay. According to the Advocate, McClurkin is no longer part of the program.”

Regina Griggs is a spokeswoman for PFOX, which enraged homosexuals with a billboard campaign pointing out identical twins seldom are homosexual, undermining the claim that a sexual lifestyle is genetic.

She told WND a study of 20,000 identical twins revealed that in fewer than 10 percent of the cases were both “gay.”

She explained homosexuality is based “on someone’s feelings and expressions… It has nothing to do with genetics.”

ISIS Claims To Have ’71 Trained Soldiers’ In Targeted U.S. States

Purported ISIS jihadists issued threats against the United States Tuesday, indicating the group has trained soldiers positioned throughout the country, ready to attack “any target we desire.”

Theonline postsingles out controversial bloggerPamela Geller, one of the organizers of the “Draw the Prophet” Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, over the weekend, calling for her death to “heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her.”

ISIS also claimed responsibility early Tuesday for the shooting, which marked the first time the terror group claimed responsibility for an attack on U.S. soil, according to theNew York Daily News.

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [authority or governance] in the heart of our enemy,” the ISIS post reads.

As for Geller, the jihadists state: “To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers.”

ISIS further claims to have known that the Muhammad cartoon contest venue would be heavily guarded, but conducted the attack to demonstrate the willingness of its followers to die for the “Sake of Allah.”

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, in fact, issued a bulletin on April 20 indicating the event would be a likely terror target.

ISIS drew its message to a close with an ominous threat:

We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah [if God wills]. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan…The next six months will be interesting.

Fox Newsreportsthat “the U.S. intelligence community was assessing the threat and trying to determine if the source is directly related to ISIS leadership or an opportunist such as a low-level militant seeking to further capitalize on the Garland incident.”

Former Navy Seal Rob O’Neill told Fox News he believes the ISIS threat is credible, and the U.S. must be prepared. He added that the incident in Garland “is a prime example of the difference between a gun free zone and Texas. They showed up at Charlie Hebdo, and it was a massacre. If these two guys had gotten into that building it would have been Charlie Hebdo times ten. But these two guys showed up because they were offended by something protected by the First Amendment, and were quickly introduced to the Second Amendment.”

Geller issued astatementregarding the ISIS posting: “This threat illustrates the savagery and barbarism of the Islamic State. They want me dead for violating Sharia blasphemy laws. What remains to be seen is whether the free world will finally wake up and stand for the freedom of speech, or instead kowtow to this evil and continue to denounce me.”

You may recall last week that we reported that Obama sent three–count ’em, THREE–White House officials to Baltimore resident Freddie Gray’s funeral. By contrast, this week Obama sent no one to the funeral of the New York police officer brutally shot in the face.

But let’s take a look at some of the other notable funerals during Obama’s regime.

Here are the funerals that Obama didn’t bother attending or sending any officials to:

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Polish President Lech Kaczynski

Navy SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle

Murdered NY officer Brian Moore

Now here are some of the funerals that Obama attended or sent White House representatives to: